Talk:Core Fighter
Infobox The infobox looks good, but it makes the information heading rather obsolete as they contain all the same information, doesn't it... On the other hand, I don't think getting rid of that heading is an option because the page width is so restricted with that infobox there that it would cut off the stat tables and make it look bad. I think it might be for the best just to have a standalone image. Thoughts? ~ Yuu 16:04, July 25, 2012 (UTC) :I am of the opinion that we should definitely have an infobox, but I went in and made it more narrow and took out the information section just to see what it would look like. Unfortunately, now the top of the article looks rather sparse... Darkslime 16:06, July 25, 2012 (UTC) :OH, shit, I'm on Monobook. I switched back to the Wikia look, which is (in my opinion) pretty terrible, but I see what you mean. It's messing up the entire layout. Darkslime 16:07, July 25, 2012 (UTC) ::Yeah, it's clear that removing the information section is not an option. Still, it doesn't sit right with me having the same thing repeated several times all over the page, you know what I mean? It looks good as hell, but it's like, what else does it accomplish? ~ Yuu :::I took out the information from the infobox and put it back in the page, so we now have an infobox with just the name, tile, and sprite in it. I'd love to just have the information and appearances be in the infobox, though, and not in the page. Perhaps a solution might be to make the stats template smaller? As in, a table where Cost/Exp/Size are all in one "column", the stats are in another "column", and the terrain stats in a third "column". I'm going to mess with it to see what I can do. Darkslime 16:13, July 25, 2012 (UTC) ::::I'm not sure that would work either, because the same spacing issue might come up because of the weapons table right below that. Right now it looks like it would just fit if the proposed change were made, but consider that when you put the information back into the infobox it's going to increase its height again. Reducing the width of the stat table could work, but it's probably not possible to do something similar to the weapons one. With a long enough appearances list it would probably create enough vertical distance, but we have to keep in mind that some units/characters have only been in and may only ever be in one G Generation game. ::::You're welcome to give it a try anyway but I'm pretty sure that the only things we can do are cut everything out of the infobox or not have one at all. ~ Yuu 16:23, July 25, 2012 (UTC) :::::With a Zakrello sprite(which is particularly large across) the infobox becomes too wide, even for the squished template. It looks like the only choice is to take out the details section in the infobox. The infobox itself looks better than just having an image float there, though, so I'd like to keep the design. I also like the squished template better, since it displays the information in a better way, imo. Darkslime 17:10, July 25, 2012 (UTC) ::::::In addition, there are some other problems. I'll illustrate by editing the page real quick so you can see what I mean. ::::::#Once the appearances section is properly filled out everything else gets pushed down, and the result is that like before, we're not using half of the page, except this time it's vertically instead of horizontally ::::::#The stats summary looks worse for units with transformations now because you don't get as much of a side-by-side comparison (check out the Zeta Gundam page to see what I mean, it's easier to just compare the stats of both forms by glancing back and forth because there's less stuck in between them) ~ Yuu 17:17, July 25, 2012 (UTC) :::::::In regards to problem 1, there's no reason we have to do it like a list this way. Units are generally named the same thing throughout the series - and those that aren't are probably worth a specific note. How about we instead have a 1-row table marking off each game the unit appears in? Something like the series list I'm doing, except wiki-fied. It would be extremely easy to make a template for that sort of thing, too. For the rare cases the name happened to change, we can add a note underneath the table; otherwise it will be clean and simple. :::::::For problem 2: I forgot about transformable units. I would have no problem adding the extra headers in the stats/weapons templates for them; that would be easy, since it'd just require an extra 1-line long template. As for the way the information is presented... I'm not sure what I like better. Your way is certainly easier to compare like that. But what about, say, the Dark Dagger unit? It has three separate states in World, so we'd have three different sprites in the infobox, right? And then that infobox would push down quite a bit... I just don't know what to do in that case. Would we split up the articles? Would we only put one image in the infobox, and maybe a thumbnail of the other forms next to their stats sections on the right? I dunno. Darkslime 17:27, July 25, 2012 (UTC) ::::::::We can do something like that, but I'm not sure what it offers over the way it already is. We can reduce the vertical space consumption that way, but I'm pretty sure that if we did it in one row then it would be too wide, and if not then it probably will be once enough G Generations come out. I think it's just simpler to do it the way it already is, especially with regards to names. One thing I think we can at least do is remove the "outside of G Generation" section, though. But my point with that was more that the longer the appearances section, the worse the weapon table would have looked if we had decreased its width. ::::::::For the Dark Dagger, they would all be on different pages. Transformations and alternate forms like Unicorn's Destroy Mode, the cloaked Crossbones and so on go on the same page, while custom units including generic commander types and hard-point system units go on different pages, because we can't predict the future and we don't know if they'll ever separate any of those units. A good example of this is that the V2AB has sometimes been a HPS unit but other times a separate unit. But regarding the fat/skinny stat tables, I really think the old style was for the best. We have more horizontal space with them, so we don't have to worry about shortening words. It's all in one row, so we don't have to worry about mismatching numbers of entries on each column. It leaves less empty space, so the page looks more full. And it's more friendly towards transforming units because it's easier to compare at a glance. ~ Yuu 17:53, July 25, 2012 (UTC) :::::::::I'm pretty sure a series row like that wouldn't be too wide. And like I said, variations in unit names are extremely few and far between. I'm going to draw up a template to see what you think. And after all, your points against the idea count against the way we're doing it now, too. As more games come out, we're going to be taking up more vertical space. :::::::::I'll switch the template back, then, and put a mockup for a transformable state on this page. Darkslime 13:04, July 26, 2012 (UTC) ::::::::::Regarding the series table, your list is about 8 games too short. (We'll just ignore i, V, and Mobile since those are virtually impossible to obtain) I edited the appearances template to show you what it would actually look like on the pages using your current design. Also keep in mind that they've been pumping out a new game about every year lately. Given enough time the table won't fit on the page anymore. We need permanent solutions that aren't going to stop working at some point down the line. The old format consumes vertical space, yes, but then vertical space is unlimited unlike horizontal space. (Well, I mean, it is unlimited, but the amount that can fit on the page before the table needing to be expanded is limited.) ::::::::::Name variation is rather unusual but regardless we can't shove it away somewhere at the bottom of pages or something. It's important to have that in an immediately visible place like how it was before. But if you have any ideas I'm willing to hear them. ::::::::::By the way, you can reset the indentation level in your reply to this. I think that's what they usually do on wikis when the discussion goes on long. ~ Yuu 17:32, July 26, 2012 (UTC) I only included mothership titles in the appearances template on purpose. The non-mothership titles could just as well go underneath in another row in the table. I don't get how if we're going to be putting so much text there the name changes would be "immediately visible". Quite the contrary, if a unit is in twenty games, your way would simply list the same name every time except in one or two, and then the user would still have to scroll all the way to the bottom of the list to see the notes on why the name was different. My table version, in fact, would display that information readily, and the viewer wouldn't have to scroll down at all. I argue that the table version presents the information in a much clearer way, and that any design problems in the future can be solved by a simple, small change to the template. (That's why we have them) Darkslime 17:49, July 26, 2012 (UTC) :Regardless of whether or not you meant to have them on there, I've intended to include them on the wiki all along and they will eventually need to be on there. Splitting up the rows has three problems: :# The list is no longer in chronological order. :# Let me give you an example: Imagine how the periodic table of elements must look to somebody who doesn't know what any of the elements' symbols stand for. The need to abbreviate the game name is fine for veterans, but for people less intimate with the series, if they don't know what the abbreviation stands for then it's essentially gibberish, and in that sense your new design can be less clear and more confusing. (Though I do agree it's much sleeker overall) :# Even if you divide the series into two categories, we'll eventually run out of space assuming the series doesn't die. Let's not think of something that works for 10 years and then doesn't, let's think of something that works always. :The names are immediately visible because they're at the top of the page and they're literally adjacent to the corresponding game. And I don't recall suggesting a note at the bottom of the page explaining why the names were different. As far as I know, that's something only the developers would know...? All we can really list is that it was, not why it was. Agreed that listing the same name over and over is redundant, but before agreeing that it will be changed I need to hear an idea on how you're going to change it. Your appearances table doesn't take into account the Japanese names, so how specifically do you want to include them? ~ Yuu 18:59, July 26, 2012 (UTC) ::I don't understand why you insist on thinking ten years down the line. Ten years down the line, we'll both be long gone, or someone else/one of us will have figured out a solution. It just doesn't seem realistic. Simply making the font slightly smaller would add plenty of space, and with two rows, there actually appears to be enough space on the page already for at least four or five years. ::To make the table version work, there needs to be abbreviations no matter what. However, it should not be hard to add mouseover tooltips on the abbreviations. ::Chronological order is not necessarily the best order. Escort titles will naturally have far less units(because of their nature), and are, if I may be frank, not quite as important as the main titles. (Of course, then there's neo/seed/3d, so...) ::Your periodic table example is bad, because the periodic table is an extremely useful reference, and is pretty universally recognizable, even if it's not instantly readable. This, not so much. I think we can get away with it like this, especially if the abbreviations have mouseovers or at least links to their respective game articles. ::I was under the impression that the entire point of your appearance list was to show what name it had in each game. If it wasn't then that's my mistake. We could probably get away with having a template that just lists them like yours, except with a smaller font or something, and possibly two columns. Or have the entire section be hide-able, or just put it at the bottom of the page. My point was that we already have the main Japanese version of the name in the information section - why bother repeating it fifteen times, rather than adding a single note underneath the appearances to say "hey, this unit was name X in game Y this time instead of its normal name Z."? ::My suggestion, if you simply cannot swallow the table idea, is to create a template to list its appearance in each game(like you had), in a smaller font, and two columns, both to save space. Also, I would eliminate the "as XX" name, rely on the name in the Information section to do that, and then just add a note underneath the template for if the unit happened to be called something else in like one game. Darkslime 13:05, July 27, 2012 (UTC) Here's what I was thinking, I even put the names in: "Appearances" would be bolded, but it isn't working. *headdesk* Of course, all of the games would be in this list; left column and then right column like it is here(though that part of the layout in particular might make it hard to create a template for it...). We can even abbreviate the games to "G Generation X" to save more space, if we're getting rid of the "outside g generation" anyway(which is probably a good idea). Also, I included the series it's not in(well, faking it) as a grayed-out name. This is optional, but 1) it would be way easier to make a template like this and 2) it seems like a good compromise to see what games the unit wasn't in. Anyway, this kind of thing would be the idea. I'm really just trying to save space. Darkslime 13:29, July 27, 2012 (UTC) :::Well, understand my position. You don't understand why I'm thinking 10 years down the line (it'd be more accurate to say now and 10 years down the line), and I don't understand why you're proposing a change that we know we'll have to change again. May as well just get it right the first time. You may not plan to be here in 10 years but I can't rule out the possibility that I or somebody else will be. :::It's your mistake, then. The point of the appearances list was so that people could see, chronologically, what games the unit has been in over the years. It's the same thing as the list you've been keeping except on an individual basis. (And with the spin-off games.) The Japanese names were added because I needed to list it somewhere and I figured I might as well do it at the place where I'm already listing each game. :::And the example is not bad, you just don't see what I'm getting at. The periodic table is an extremely useful reference for people who actually know the elements. It's not the ideal tool for somebody who only knows like a third of them. But I think it's moot either way at this point. :::Wait, if your entire concern is space, why is that even a factor if we can just make the list hide-able? ~ Yuu 20:52, July 27, 2012 (UTC) ::::I'm generally not thinking ten years down the line because if stuff like this gets in the way of us actually putting content on the wiki, I think it's more worth it to use a short-term solution now than to argue for weeks on a infinitely-long-term solution. :) ::::If people only know a third of the games in the G Gen series, then it shouldn't matter how we present it just as long as we include hyperlinks to the game pages, methinks. ::::My main concern is space, but you can't eliminate style from the equation. We can make just make the list hideable, sure, but I was trying to make it look cool. :) Darkslime 16:21, July 30, 2012 (UTC) :::::Well, deliberating a bit is fine. It's not like it'll take very long to find something that works. Under normal circumstances I would agree that we should use something temporary just so that we have a placeholder for others, but keep in mind that there's nobody else here and there probably won't be for a couple of months, so we have plenty of time for this sort of thing. I do agree that style is important though, and to that end a lot of things do need to change. :::::Incidentally, my work hours have increased dramatically lately so my pace is going to slow down, but I am about done with the Spirits stage guide and I'd say that's the most tedious, time-consuming part, so... ~ Yuu 03:54, July 31, 2012 (UTC)